Have something to say?

Ready to be published? LXer is read by around 350,000 individuals each month, and is an excellent place for you to publish your ideas, thoughts, reviews, complaints, etc. Do you have something to say to the Linux community?

RE: Microsoft & Linux Vendors Trading in Patent Fool's Gold

You forgot to make mention of "enhanced interoperability" which happens to be the most interesting aspect of the whole deal. It would be injustice against the consumer community and the public at large to think of the agreement as just a patent protection. Also, to say that the widely applauded agreement is a fool's gold means that all the good intentions of the said agreements has either been lost in translation or intentionally ignored.

Everyone knows that MS cannot have Patents or Copyrights to GNU/Linux, just like the republican or democratic party cannot terminate the existence of the other. However, both political parties do work together in the interest of the public. That is what we are witnessing with MS and Novell, or as the case may be Xandros etc. There are several advantages to the deal as against the disadvantages. Here's the best part, the consumers would not be worse of in the worst case scenerio, that is, if we are only focusing on the disadvantages, but has a whole lot to gain on the other hand. With both companies programmers working together to give GNU/Linux the best Window/Linux interoperability on the market, the patent protection which is already in place would then make more sense after the release of GNU/Linux.

There are excellent stories out there. Some group within the Linux community doesn't approve of a relationship that other people consider way overdue shouldn't turn the world upside down. The deal is a win-win for everyone with the consumers reaping the most benefits.

>>You forgot to make mention of "enhanced interoperability" which happens to be the most interesting aspect of the whole deal.

The article was about patent protection. If enhanced interoperability is the goal, why is it stated in quotes here? What is it that lies behind the quoted term?

This is a rather feeble attempt to try to change the subject, rendering the post off-topic for the article to which it responds.

>>It would be injustice against the consumer community and the public at large to think of the agreement as just a patent protection.

How so?

What is a "consumer community and the public at large?" The term "weasel words" comes to mind, but a weasel is too advanced a creature to describe these.

>>Also, to say that the widely applauded agreement is a fool's gold means that all the good intentions of the said agreements has either been lost in translation or intentionally ignored.

Widely applauded by whom, and for what?

Whose intentions? Business good intentions? Fine. What other intentions could be better than those? Glad some business has someones best interest at heart. Which business and which interest remain undefined here.

"Lost in Translation?" Unlikely. The GNU/Linux community (made up largely of developers, engineers, and others of unusual intelligence and creativity) is far underestimated by this statement.

"Intentionally ignored?" To what possible end?

---

So, that's one paragraph down, and two to go. I'll let others pick up where I left off.

To the editors: I think this post belongs to one who either a) Does not speak English very well, or b) Is too naïve for words, or C) Is being paid to poorly defend the agreements mentioned, or D) All of the above.

Whatever it is, I see through it, and I sincerely doubt that I am the only one here who does.

It is most apparent that the OP missed the point completely. The current agreements only look like a win-win situation. But they fail to solve the real problem. Can anyone test my article against a teenager? If the teenager doesn't get it, let me know. I try not to write on a Master's level for a reason.

Frankly, the whole "enhanced interoperability" issue is probably worth a separate article. There were lots of things I wanted to mention, but had to consider economy of words and other issues. I hate straying off point.

I rarely delete threads that aren't actually advertisements, but you can skip this one if it makes your IQ hurt. Take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning. ;-)

When talking about enhanced interoperability, we also need to split the discussion into Novell and everybody else. Novell has a long history of providing networking and directory services software, a business that Microsoft has really hurt with it's networking products and with Active Directory.

For Novell, enhanced interoperability has meaning and value that has goes beyond Linux.

Quoting:For Novell, enhanced interoperability has meaning and value that has goes beyond Linux. For a Linux distribution, me kinda wonders.

Perhaps you and other readers of the recent patent-protection deal news should take this whole issue of "enhanced interoperability for the benefit our customers" nonsense off of Novell & other Linux distros, and put it squarely back onto MS where it rightly belongs.

As tracyanne wrote above

Quoting:If Microsoft were truly interested in enhanced interoperability, all they need do is use the same open standards that the Linux community uses.

Yes Microsoft is interested in interoperability, so that every one can continue to dance to the tune of Microsoft's proprietary standards.

Given MS's track-record, this is right on!
dinotrac obviously seems to disagree on this one point.

I have no idea what you're talking about. With regards to Novell, Linux is only one part of their business. They have been in competition with Microsoft for some time, selling their own proprietary software.

That makes interoperability different from Novell than for a Linux distribution.

Well mxer, we're sorry, but if you didn't know that: We here at LXer are kind of paranoid. And we have every right to be paranoid.

Take this first example: The EU asked Microsoft Corp. around anno '98 to make sure software of other companies could interoperate with the MIcrosoft Windows Server product range (like Microsoft Windows NT back then). Microsoft Corp. refused. After that, the EU threatened with a fine. Microsoft still refused. After that, they got the fine, the biggest fine the EU gave ever. They still refused. However, they _did_ offer the source code. Since source code was not needed and even useless for inter-operability, and Microsoft knew this, they were deliberately trying to slow things down, also going to court to fight the fine for as long as possible. Finally, they offered the information requested, but with such a license and price, 'poor' developers of small projects still couldn't make their products interoperable with Microsoft Windows Server products. The EU asked Microsoft to come up with a researcher to find out if the fares were justified or not (IIRC). The researcher Microsoft chose said the price was not justified. After that, Microsoft tried to make the researcher _they_ came up with look like a friend of their enemy, the EU.
So, concluding, after Sun firstly complained about the lack of interoperability with Microsoft Server products and Microsoft deliberately making it as difficult as possible for their competitors to interoperate with their products, nine years later Microsoft still doesn't _WANT_ it's server products to be interoperable with other software from other vendors. It even kind of paid $630 million (current exch. rate) to keep it that way.

Second example: Microsoft didn't join the OASIS discussions about an open document standard, because it said it was a SUN-only attempt, but frankly they also didn't care. After ODF made it to the ISO-standard, and their own OOXML didn't (yet), they deliberately made it as difficult as possible for Microsoft Office users to use ODF. They made a converter which s*cked, they gave away 30-day trial versions of Office2007 to make sure people would have OOXML documents which couldn't be converted to ODF (as of yet), and they tried to make their own standard, with al its shortcomings, an ISO standard. To make sure the latter would happen, they tried to indoctrinate the UK people and write to politicians the citizens wanted / needed OOXML as an ISO standard, and the UK standard body should vote in favor of it.
Again, the conclusion is Microsoft doesn't want interoperability. If they would have wanted it, they would have come to the OASIS meetings, since they were an OASIS member after all, and asked for what DIN (Deutsche Industrie fur Normung) suggested: to make a lot of complements that would make ODF compatible with the legacy .doc documents. If they really wanted compability, they also would have put the description/definition of the legacy .doc, .xls etc. formats in the OOXML standard. They didn't, since the billions of legacy documents only readable by Microsoft Office are a real value for them.

After those things happened, they paid millions to Novell, to make sure Novell could make Novell's Linux software interoperable with Windows. Right. You believe that? I'm sure I speak for the majority of LXer's readers, we don't. As I said, we don't believe Microsoft because we're paranoid. At least, other people say so. I would say, we're being realistic.

Quoting:The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies...Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others—as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders—serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God.

This is fun. Does it count as "appeal to authority" if I would have said the same thing, were I able to say it as well?

I'll add a few more I found recently:

"Carjacking or impoundment? We now have two vocabularies for
wrongs, depending on whether private persons or government
agents commit them. This is the difference between mass
murder and national defense. Between extortion and taxation.
Between counterfeiting and inflation. And so on. Other
examples will occur to the astute reader."
--- Joseph Sobran

"There are some troubles from which mankind can never escape. . . .
[The anarchists] have never claimed that liberty will bring perfection;
they simply say that its results are vastly preferable to those that
follow from authority....
As a choice of blessings, liberty is the greater; as a choice of evils,
liberty is the smaller. Then liberty always says the Anarchist. No use
of force except against the invader."
--- Benjamin Tucker

I wanna play... even though we are in blatant violation of LXer's TOS.

Concerning the US' two party system...

Quoting: I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.